Bewilderment as a pragmatic ingredient of teacher-student dialogic interactions

Název: Bewilderment as a pragmatic ingredient of teacher-student dialogic interactions
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2019, roč. 24, č. 4, s. [45]-61
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Článek
Licence: Neurčená licence

Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.

Several studies on dialogic pedagogies have contributed to shedding light on how the traditional, authoritative Inquiry-Response-Evaluation (IRE) pattern may be transformed into more open, discursive formats through the inclusion of discursive moves, e.g. questions, that are more "authentic" than others. However, the problem of defining genuine teacher-student dialogue at a discourse sequence level remains open. In this essay, I define this type of dialogue from a cognitive perspective, as a dialogue aimed at fulfilling a sensemaking goal framed in at least three ways: as an individual constructionist, a socio-constructivist, and a socio-epistemological process. I then propose bewilderment, based on the philosophical concept of "critical aporia," as a necessary ingredient of pedagogical teacher-student interactions. These two elements, sensemaking and bewilderment, are then used together as framing indicators of three different profiles of pedagogical dialogues.
The work reported here received funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the Norma Transitória – DL 57/2016/CP1453/CT0066, and under the project "P4C-AIM: Philosophy for Children and the Dawn of Moral Intuition: Values and Reasons in Rationality and Reasonability" – PTDC/FER-FIL/29906/2017.
[1] Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2), 1–25. Retrieved from:

[2] Aukerman, M. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy, 1(1), 1–31. Retrieved from

[3] Bakhtin, M. (1999). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[4] Burbules, N. C. (1997). Aporia: Webs, Passages, Getting Lost, and Learning to Go On. In Philosophy of Education 1997: A Publication of the Philosophy of Education Society (Annual) (pp. 33–43.) Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.

[5] Burbules, N., & Bruce, B. C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edition (pp. 1102–1121), Washington: American Educational Research Association.

[6] Burningham, K., & Cooper, G. (1999). Being constructive: Social constructionism and the environment. Sociology, 33(2), 296–316. | DOI 10.1017/S0038038599000188

[7] Butcher, K. R., & Sumner, T. (2011). Self-directed learning and the sensemaking paradox. Human–Computer Interaction, 26(1–2), 123–159. | DOI 10.1080/07370024.2011.556552

[8] Charteris, J. (2014). Epistemological shudders as productive aporia: A heuristic for transformative teacher learning. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 104–121. | DOI 10.1177/160940691401300102

[9] Coll, C., & Falsafi, L. (2010). Learner identity. An educational and analytical tool. Revista de Educación, 17(353), 211–233.

[10] Collins, J. (1982). Discourse style, classroom interaction and differential treatment. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(4), 429–437. | DOI 10.1080/10862968209547468

[11] Craig-Lees, M. (2001). Sense making: Trojan horse? Pandora's box?. Psychology & Marketing, 18(5), 513–526. | DOI 10.1002/mar.1019

[12] Cunningham, D. J., Schreiber, J. B., & Moss, C. M. (2005). Belief, doubt and reason: CS Peirce on education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(2), 177–189. | DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00108.x

[13] Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2

[14] Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. | DOI 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1

[15] Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. | DOI 10.1080/07370008.2012.689383

[16] Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20482

[17] Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[18] Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119). Greenwich: IAP.

[19] Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE intelligent systems, 21(4), 70–73. | DOI 10.1109/MIS.2006.75

[20] Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[21] Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22(3), 222–240. | DOI 10.1080/09500780802152499

[23] Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168. | DOI 10.1177/1461445617691702

[24] Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

[25] Matusov, E., Baker, D., Fan, Y., Choi, H. J., & Hampel, R. L. (2017). Magic Learning Pill: Ontological and instrumental learning in order to speed up education. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(3), 456–476. | DOI 10.1007/s12124-017-9384-8

[26] Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Gradovski, M. (2019). Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

[27] Mehan, H. (1979). "What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into practice, 18(4), 285–294. | DOI 10.1080/00405847909542846

[28] Murray, T. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building and integral theory: On perspectives, uncertainty, and mutual regard. Integral Review, 2(1), 210–268.

[29] Ng, P. T., & Tan, C. (2009). Community of practice for teachers: sensemaking or critical reflective learning?. Reflective Practice, 10(1), 37–44. | DOI 10.1080/14623940802652730

[30] Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.

[31] Papastephanou, M., & Angeli, C. (2007). Critical thinking beyond skill. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(6), 604–621. | DOI 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00311.x

[32] Pirolli, P., & Russell, D. M. (2011) Introduction to this Special Issue on sensemaking. Human–Computer Interaction, 26(1–2), 1–8. | DOI 10.1080/07370024.2011.556557

[33] Politis, V. (2006). Aporia and searching in early Plato. In L. Judson & V. Karasmanēs, (Eds.) Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays (pp. 87–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[34] Rapanta, C. (2018). Potentially argumentative teaching strategies – and how to empower them. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(3), 451–464.

[35] Scott, Ph., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20131

[36] Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Van den Berg, R. (2002). Conditions fostering educational change. In K. Leithwood, & Ph. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

[37] Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 147–153. | DOI 10.1080/00405849309543590

[38] Van Dijk, T. (1977). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M. A. Just, & P. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 3–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[39] Vrikki, M., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., Hennessy, S., Lee, L., Hernández, F., Estrada, N., & Ahmed, F. (2019). The teacher scheme for educational dialogue analysis (T-SEDA): developing a research-based observation tool for supporting teacher inquiry into pupils' participation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(2), 185–203. | DOI 10.1080/1743727X.2018.1467890

[40] Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press.

[41] Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

[42] Wells, G. (1993). Re-evaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37. | DOI 10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4